It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Government transparency: Where do you draw the line?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Again you’re cherry picking things and not tackling the subject in its complex entirety.



It's not that I want to cherry pick - but you want me to discuss the issue on your terms - and I'm not willing to do that, because I believe they are flawed....just as you believe mine are flawed.




posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Hi Mike_A
"Government transparency : where do you draw the line" ?
Ok, this is the subject of this thread.
But answering to this question is irrelevant IMO, if the guidelines are not drawn.
We, as Democratic countries, have a big problem : we are supposed to be like children beeing told that this is just a little punch which doesn't hurt, before beeing cut a finger.
So, to lie is getting support, when telling the truth would be loosing support.
And support is the basis of Democracy ...
So, the question becomes : "how far the end may justifiy the means" ?
There is another big problem : if everyone accepts the idea that for good reasons, the Government may lie to us, not everybody is enough dumb to believe that the Government will never lie to us for bad ones.
The main cement of a Nation is the TRUST we have in our Government.
If the law becomes : the Government, for good reasons that you haven't to know, doesn't tell us the truth, the TRUST is gone, and so the cement of the Nation.
You want a strong and united Nation ?
Don't allow the Government to lie to us.
EVEN for good reasons.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Well if they can scan me nude ,grope my wifes breast, and fondle my sons, family jewels ,bust in to our homes uninvited take our income money without cause,make me buy this license /that license,read my emails,slash listen to my phone calls ,track me with GPS...ect...ect..

I want the muther frigging same dam power to do the same to them,

We all put our pants on the same way every dam day,

I am just saying



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


We should know everything. Things dealing with the faces of the world we should know. Not what they think is best, but what we think is best. If we were all politicians and diplomatics we all would have a choice and I think things would be more balanced out on a larger scale.

This whole controlled bureaucracy thing is idiocy. "We need people in jail" etc... STUPID. People will do bad things if they choose. It's SO many geniuses in jail that aren't supposed to be there. At the same time there are people are supposed to be there. I'm just saying make things fair, It's not fair that a hand full of people rule the country and has been for the past century+ and will until the country falls. Not fair, because they put what's in they're best interest, not mines or others.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 



Look, I've already said - yes, it is idealism. You seem to think idealism is rubbish. I have a different view. You might as well say that there's no point in aspiring to anything better or different, because such things always start with an ideal of something better.


Aspiring to better things is fine but aspiring to be a cage fighter when you don’t have any arms or legs is a waste of effort, you have to work with what you’ve got.

We’re not discussing it on my terms but on the terms of the world in which we find ourselves. You can influence your own government; you can’t make the world follow your rules.


Well, I believe that transparency would have prevented WWII from happening at in the first place, so for me your argument about D-Day is irrelevant.


You can make the claim but I don’t see any evidence to support it; people still have fears and desires, they’re still subject to group mentalities, resources are still finite and it is these that lead to war not secrets.

But I repeat we’re not talking about an ideal world where everyone conforms to your vision of utopia. At best you could bring about transparency within your own country; realistically we both agree that you won’t get better than that.


What is wrong with people who are paid to represent the people sharing their frank opinions with the people?


I didn’t say anything was wrong with it I said that total transparency would discourage it. For example a politician is probably not going to criticise his constituents when he needs them to re-elect him, even if the criticism is well founded.

Opinions also have effects that can’t always be predicted; the frank opinion of a diplomat or government advisor could precipitate anything form war to a run on his nations currency.

In the UK we’ve had a few recent cases of politicians being forced to stand down or at least retract their opinion because they said something that was damaging to their party’s election chances. Their opinions were not evil, they weren’t lying, they weren’t even necessarily wrong but nevertheless the debate they wished to have was stifled and government will now shy away from tackling these sensitive issues.


This is frankly silly, the transparency being discussed here is government transparency - not personal details, PIN numbers, etc.


It was an analogy dear I know what we’re discussing.

And I think the analogy was perfectly apt, the replies so far have equated secrecy with evil lies and whatnot; what I was illustrating was the fact that secrets are not necessarily bad and can in fact be a necessity.


No, actually, I believe the current matrix goes against human nature, and what we need is something which accords with it.

As long as you aren't aware you are in a matrix, you won't be able to see outside of it...and that's why we can't have a profitable discussion about this.


When you say “matrix” what exactly do you mean? Are you talking about neo, Morpheus and all that, NWO stuff or what?

I don’t really buy the conspiracy theories.

reply to post by orkson
 


First of all I think there’s a little language barrier so I apologise if I misunderstand you.

I think you’re doing what I mentioned above, that is equating secrecy with lying. That isn’t necessarily the case.

reply to post by controlled chaos
 


Would you still say that if it means your country misses out on a trade deal and you lose your job because of it?



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Mizzijr
 


Same question to you, would you want this openness even if included a report on the bleak outlook of your economy which could lead to investment drying up, job losses etc? Or should the government keep this quiet and try to maintain investment?



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


If everybody was open to that, we would all know what we should, as far as stocks, bonds, and finance in general. If things were the way I'm saying, no body would be taken down off guard unless they aren't paying attention.

Also, something like that lets you know that a government keeping an investment in spite of losing jobs, drying up investment, etc.. is not working for the people, that would be working for a group of individuals. Any government that actually cares about they're country would cut that investment or not invest in it at all.
edit on 30-11-2010 by Mizzijr because: I wanted to.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Hmm i think you have what i said with somthing else because what i said has no bearing on any trading at all ?

I just want all facts laid out in front of me ,whether wright or wrong/from both sides all opions/info

thats the only way we can vote or decide in an unbiased way, we have to know all from both sides do we not?

how dose that effect a job , If other countries people are not lazy and make their own stuff , their would be no need for any kind of global power ,think about it

If all countries allowed anyone to set up shop in any country,and The power industry wasnt so greeeeedy
and travel was cheaper shiping was cheaper / then there would be no need for trade deals i could just go there and get it if needed .

But for some reason on the globe Joe the regular plumber cant go set up shop and help his china friends get good running sewers?? you know what i mean?

to much expense and to much red tape ...WHY? i see china companies/jewish/mexcican/indian..ect ect..
mom and pop shops here in the usa, but not much in the far east or middle east ...WHY?

Because no one knows what is going on ,we only know what we are told, and that is fear and be scared , untill TPTB have already set up shop first.


we all need to make stuff build stuff ,all over the planet with each other Its 2011 lets all loose the stupid tradition/superstition , work and build together globaly.

I just want to be taught all the facts and be able to research all the facts from anywhere I can to form my own opinion , and then go from there,

Thats all i was saying All facts should be laid out, if they where, then a global judgement, could be imposed on what ever it was ,when it came to, war, economy , food, housing,and power( to run our lives), all info pertaining to that should be wide open for all to see ,those subject effect each and everyone of us< do they NOT?

edit on 30-11-2010 by controlled chaos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Mizzijr
 



If everybody was open to that, we would all know what we should, as far as stocks, bonds, and finance in general. If things were the way I'm saying, no body would be taken down off guard unless they aren't paying attention.


You may not be taken off guard but that isn’t any comfort to those who are adversely affected.

If the government assesses an industry to be fundamentally uncompetitive who wins by this information being public? Investors can, and probably would, avoid that industry; those who are employed don’t have that freedom of choice. This just an example but I’ve highlighted others above.

I’m not sure what you trying to say in your second paragraph.

reply to post by controlled chaos
 



Hmm i think you have what i said with somthing else because what i said has no bearing on any trading at all ?


This thread is asking how transparent you think your government should be nothing more than that.

I understood your post to mean that you wanted the power to see everything that your government does, i.e. total transparency. If you want that then you get the bad with the good; trade was just an example of how information the government keeps secret could adversely affect you if it was made public (see above). There are others I’ve also mentioned.

Total free trade as you seem to be advocating is another issue altogether.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 
Since our government is so far from transparent it seems this is the only way (aside from international news sources)we seem to get anything that our government is doing,we don't even have a transparent media and what does that leave us with??.........nothing!



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Which hurts more? Being punched in the face with you eyes closed or open? Eyes closed hurts more right? Why? because you weren't able to brace yourself for impact.

I think comfort comes when a person knows something is coming. Rather it be an attack or financial collapse.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Mizzijr
 


You’re missing the point of the example entirely; by keeping secrets they could avoid “being punched in the face” completely whereas being open increases the likelihood of being punched. Government opinion does have a real and serious effect on markets and investment, a treasury coming out and saying their steel industry is uncompetitive could be the direct cause of its collapse where keeping this information confidential could avoid such drastic consequences. It’s like going for a loan and telling them you’re not sure you will have a job at the end of the month; if you want the loan (investment) it’s best that you keep this information to yourself.

How about moving onto another example, say intelligence sharing. Surely you wouldn’t disagree that there are threats that need to be controlled, groups such as the IRA, ETA etc or organised criminal organisations. Intelligence services rely heavily on the sharing of information in order to contain these kinds of threats (and others) but why would one nation share their intelligence with another when confidentiality would be nonexistent? On a related note why would individuals within these organisations ever come forward if their anonymity cannot be maintained? In fact how could intelligence be gathered or used at all if all information is to be in the public domain?

Or what about the example I gave a few posts above of policy makers being punished for speaking frankly? Given the undeniable real world cases where politicians have been rebuked for expressing controversial opinions how would you ensure free debate when it comes to politically sensitive topics?

Or what about one of the examples from the OP where a nation finds itself involved in a military conflict; should all plans be made public?

Are there no cases at all where the government should maintain secrecy?



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


If all things can be seen, out in the open no shady crap behind the scenes, or if there was never any fear to begin with,if there was never any power hungriness in the world there would be no need for secretes.

If there was free open trade where it didnt matter where we lived ,there would be no need for secretes,

If there was no superstitions/traditions that keep people working and building together,Joe plumer could go set up shop in turkmenistan and sell products to them , I may not get rich but i should be able to that or sell a friggin hamburger, without offending a whole country,Really a hamburger , get over it people ITs 2011

If we all cant play in the sand box together by now ,....

Then nothing ever will ever do it ,other then a global catastrophe / some outer world invasion, if we cant do it now,and looks like with whats in the news we cant.

We should just sit smoke the dam peace pipe, take a friggin advil and chill the frig out.

If johny achmed in india wants a pair of american brand shoes ,then johny Bob the shoe guy should be able to hook up , and if johny bob in america wants some fresh cut manila they should be able to hook up without fear of each other , and the language barrier is a moot point in 2011, most anyone can get a voice to voice translator device you speak selected country speech comes out and Vice versa

I am just saying

secretes are for shills only, privacy is another monster,private is private ,anything that effect the public !!! should BE MADE PUUBBLLIICC...



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by controlled chaos
 


I’m sure if there was no fear, no criminals, no terrorist groups, no business interests, no superstitions, if resources were plentiful, if everyone only took what they need, etc etc then everything would be fine but that’s a utopia that does not exist.

In the real world we do have to live with human psychology, we do have to live with the fact that resources are limited and we do have deal with the fact that not everyone has the same goals.

You are refusing to deal with the difficult realities and instead retreat into an unrealistic ideal; what about criminal investigations, open debate or armed conflict? Government transparency won’t stop these things from being a real problem. Can you reply to those examples that I posted above?

And if secrecy is for shills only can you give me all of your bank details please?



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


No you refuse to see that all of this is not needed.

TPTB created this confusion,fear,did they not?

how is building together without fear unrealistic?,what reality do you live and what country ,and time do you live in?

Why do you feel the need to sanitize or hide facts?

Who are you to decide who gets to see what,who are to decide what we should read or not,where i should live or not,who are you??

I do not have unrealistic views.

There shouldnt be war at all today its 2011, there is no to need fear some other whole country its not like all the people in a said country are all bad wright? why fear them all, we just need to watch the few bad apples ,and secretes will create war, from like of trust.

We are told to fear middle eastern countries, REALLY? WHY? they are just people just like me and you so why assume they are more evil then you or I?They put their pants on the same way as me and you.

If country A,finds out country B, is hiding some new way of making electricity ,should country A tell all countries if country B dose not? If it will help the world ,or hurt the world? or should they keep a secrete?

Anyone who knew pearl harbor was going to happen ,should they have warned us ?
If anyone knew those plane where going to hit 9/11 should they have kept it a secrete?

What you are not thinking about, is that feeling the need to keep secretes from people, when those secrete effect the people who it was being with held from ,creates distrust and fear ,and if you say it dosen't you are just nieve,or arguing to agrue.

LOl. and your lil coment about bank info just restates what im am saying ,you didnt even read my post ,look at what i said, I said privet is privet, unless your privet info effects the public then it becomes public, info

The simple fact that you said that shows you read only what you want too but that's all good man.

What i do is privet, is it not? as long as ,it dose not take anyone's life,freedom,liberty,the right to travel,the right to food ,and the right to shelter ,away ,it should be kept privet ,Do we agree??

But if what you do effects the public then it should be made public.

I said nothing about utopia ,you just assumed , i never once said there wouldn,t be bad,or people doing wrong ,or everyone keeping inline.How can you say thats what i think ,??? you have never friggin met me so why don,t you refrain from thinking for me, or deciding what i should be privy to or not ,thank you very much!

Who the hell are you , to decide for anyone on this planet what they should read,what they should see,what they should wear,what they should believe ,Who are you?

What make you the guy?what morals,or enlightenment do you have that puts you above all others ,that make you think you/or anyone else should think for me or control what i read, who are they to tell me, i am not ready for any info that might seem out of the norm or to hard to understand,What a pompous mentality.

All i am saying all this fear ,all this confusion,all of this misdirection, is on purpose. ,So the question shouldnt be weather or not we should know what are government is doing that will effect us,The question should be If our government is of the people and for the people ,Do we not pay them to keep us informed,to protect us??

Do we not pay them to do the things that we cant do,?
Don't we pay them to keep foreign relations? We do all of this to keep us, and represent us, in good faith with other foreign countries.

I am not talking we need to see privet emails from the POTUS,congress.I am talking anything that effects the public should be made public,

But if china is going to (((secretely ))) start buying all bottle water to control the market ,And Tells some friend in the usa ,and some congressmen sees the memo !You truly feel that that info still needs to be kept secrete?

If it effects you ,me johny acmed, johny leroy,johny bob,johny carlos, you think it should not be made public?

If you answer yes then you are on the TPTB side and are not for humanity, around the world,you are for the people who feel they are above the rest,and should keep secretes from those who you deem not enlightend enough to be privy to the same info,

Really LOL.

Who the HELL are you dude ?

add ..War should only effect those who want war, why should I,or you, or or johny acmed in his adobe hut,who probably dosnt even have a tv or news outlet, even be effected by other people who hate each other?The sahara desert, is thousands of miles away from everyone make that a permenate dueling ground,and let all the stoopid idiots battle there that feel the need to measure peckers go and duel it out,But leave us people around the world who want sit , and smoke, the piece pipe and sing kumbaya.

Hell Film it and i bet TPTB could cure all debt, with the ticket sales and pay perveiw around the world.

Hold 2 a year 6 months to plan and train ,any country who wants to rumble bring it , limit the weps that they use ,but other then that no rules except no one that dosent want to fight dose not have to fight ,unless u change your mind then join on up any side you want to ,

If jony ringo wants to go help china one battle let him if he dosent die ,hell next battle he could help america ,

Make a desert octagon and make a UFC LOL
Hmm the title would be untill you loose it,hmm

They get first dibs on lets say,for the 6 month reign of champ,your countries currencies is the reserve currency,?? lol








edit on 1-12-2010 by controlled chaos because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-12-2010 by controlled chaos because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-12-2010 by controlled chaos because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by controlled chaos
 



TPTB created this confusion,fear,did they not?


No, these are rooted in basic facets of human nature.

Can you explain how you would deal with the problems that I have outlined above or otherwise explain why they wouldn’t be a problem?

You can claim that we shouldn’t have war in 2011 (it’s 2010 btw) but it is a fact that we do so you must deal with it. If you are claiming that your government being transparent would stop war then you must justify that.


I said nothing about utopia ,you just assumed , i never once said there wouldn,t be bad,or people doing wrong ,or everyone keeping inline


What you described was a utopian ideal.

But if you accept that these threats would still exist regardless of openness how then do you deal with them when secrecy is impossible?


I am not talking we need to see privet emails from the POTUS,congress.I am talking anything that effects the public should be made public,


And I have asked you what about those instances (I’ve given enough examples in previous posts) where making information public would adversely affect the public?


But if china is going to (((secretely ))) start buying all bottle water to control the market ,And Tells some friend in the usa ,and some congressmen sees the memo !You truly feel that that info still needs to be kept secrete?


No. You seem to be under the impression that I am advocating total secrecy, I am not. However I do accept the public interest is served in some cases by the government keeping secrets.


Who the hell are you , to decide for anyone on this planet what they should read,what they should see,what they should wear,what they should believe ,Who are you?


Who said I was? Calm down please I’d rather keep this civil.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


I looked at both and gave you answers ,yes all trade deals effecting peoples lives need to be made public



"For example in armed conflicts should we know military plans"

This is what i think to this ,Really?? That really should go without saying, NO! Of course not that would endanger lives would it not? But the idea/plan of war, before the war starts!!( if 2 countries/multiple countries /whatever,want war then,).... All political/economical/what ever,.. Needs to be laid out discussed ,if the dum asses cant work it out, let them fight it out ,but "them" dosent mean me and you , dose it ? why cant we hang out ? why cant the people who actually have an issue with each other duke it out i have no prob with that ,

Duke it out the better man will win shake at the end go have a beer .hell if you feel froggy ..jump again...just dont force it on the public when most of the people on this planet in this day and age , really have no issue with each other. We cant, we have never met most each other?? Let the pmpous asses handle it themselves.

If me and you dont want war ,why should we be subject to the people who wont wake up and are still stuck in the dark ages. And,
Hmm this was my solution,was a joke tho.

(("Hell Film it and i bet TPTB could cure all debt, with the ticket sales and pay preveiw around the world.
Hold 2 a year 6 months to plan and train ,any country who wants to rumble bring it , limit the weps that they use ,but other then that no rules except no one that dosent want to fight dose not have to fight ,unless u change your mind then join on up any side you want to ,

If jony ringo wants to go help china one battle let him if he dosent die ,hell next battle he could help america ,

Make a desert octagon and make a UFC LOL
Hmm the title would be untill you loose it,hmm

They get first dibs on lets say,for the 6 month reign of champ,your countries currencies is the reserve currency,?? lol ")

(("What about less clear cut examples where life may not be directly on the line? For example should the details of trade negotiations be public knowledge regardless of whether it gives competitors an advantage? "))

I believe ,you know my answer,that is ...yes. Is fair trade not fair trade?? How can it be fair trade if all variables are not the same?? would all trade deals/information ,be needed to vale the future / present moment, value of the whole trade/deal/whatever?

If not? its nothing more then a used car salesman with holding the information about the car because it may sway whether or not someone may buy the car or not, and we all know used car salsemen can not have that happen.

This ?? here is basicly the same as your?? is it not.
(("But if china is going to (((secretely ))) start buying all bottle water to control the market ,And Tells some friend in the usa ,and some congressmen sees the memo !You truly feel that that info still needs to be kept secrete?"))

Integrity,is the number one thing in any trade/deal. if the deal/trade is not integral , dont do the deal,

With holding information dose not allow for a full valuation of the deal about to happen, and you find that ok? if so it says alot for your integrity.

I am just of the mentality , all things should be on the level.


edit on 1-12-2010 by controlled chaos because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by controlled chaos
 



This is what i think to this ,Really?? That really should go without saying


With respect it doesn’t go without saying, the point of the thread was to determine where people thought limits should apply. Elsewhere both in posts on ATS and on other sites a lot of people have been advocating total transparency from their government; I’d like to discuss whether that is practical or not.

So you agree that some limits do apply to government transparency?

I agree that the public should know the argument for war but even here aren’t there grey areas? Given your agreement that information could be withheld to protect lives would you agree that there are certain types of intelligence that could not be published because of the risk it could pose to intelligence agents or informants?

Further to this what if publishing this intelligence would compromise an action but not necessarily risk life. For example publishing specific intelligence relating to an act of genocide to prove to the public that military action is required but in doing so allowing the perpetrators to now cover up their involvement?


(("What about less clear cut examples where life may not be directly on the line? For example should the details of trade negotiations be public knowledge regardless of whether it gives competitors an advantage? "))

I believe ,you know my answer,that is ...yes. Is fair trade not fair trade?? How can it be fair trade if all variables are not the same??


Well you wouldn’t go into an auction and declare how much you’re willing to bid up to would you? It wouldn’t be unfair of you to withhold this information.

Similarly in government to government deals it would be foolish to publish your terms for all to see as it would give competitors, even in a free market, information on how to outbid you.

This isn’t being underhanded or unfair and it certainly doesn’t equate to a used car salesman; we’re not talking about misleading the customer.

You haven’t replied to the problem of free discussion on sensitive issues. How would that work in a transparent system?



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Yes I agree there should be some but ,if all was open in the first place the instance may have never ever happen if the fear was not Embedded,deliberately ,before the connfict came to a head .Do you not see that Military plans for war when all else fails,those plans are no different then what i am willing to pay for a deal,

As long as both sides have access to the same info,of the issue at hand nothing witheld,and if cant be worked out after talks then so be it ,but the actual plan of attack is privet.

The auction price ,as far what you are willing to pay is privet,quit mixing the 2 things,

The information that leads, me to believe what I, think its worth should be the same as all others at the auction because my opinion on the info my be different then the others,. But at least we are privy to same exact info ,how they interprete, the info and the value maybe totally different to me , that is fine and dandy at least all the info was open and for all to see, to level the playing ground.Nothing hidden ,fair deal, Then what ever i pay or whatever the other guy pays is on them , if they pay to much for not reading /studying the info,that was wide open to them as the next guy,which allows them to create a more informed opinion,I dont see how any kind of trade should be conducted any other way , Who in their wright mind would even think of doing a deal if some of the info about the deal/trade, is being with held , it is dum to do.

I cant think of one deal that should have any information witheld from anyone,its purely dishonest.

what some one is willing to pay is privet,the info about the item being bought/sold , should be out in the open .do you not agree?

Sensitive issues ,Really get a friggin grip ,grow a friggin pair, talk like adults ,agree to disagree,no ones opinion is better then anyone else. If you have a problem with some one and cant work it out move to the next guy and try to work it out with them,if ect,rinse and repeat.Or simply dont hang around them /deal with them. No one should be forced to be friends , but should respect each others lives should they not?

People need to get over this PC crap.

What some one thinks is completely worthless, it dose nothing, only their actions do .If country A says we really dont like country B dose it really friggin matter as long as country A dosnt attack country B



The only thing i can say Grow up, stick,and stones may break bones, but OPINIONs never hurt anyone,....and you know Opinions are just like As... holes ,every one has one ,and they smell just a little



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by controlled chaos
 


I don’t think we can dismiss all or even most conflict as being deliberately contrived; I think that’s the prevailing opinion thanks to Iraq but does that apply to the majority? I mean things like Rwanda or the Balkans were rooted in deep historical and cultural tensions, being open wouldn’t have altered those fundamental tensions though that’s not to say they weren’t avoidable.


The auction price ,as far what you are willing to pay is privet,quit mixing the 2 things,


But it’s perfectly analogous to trade on a nation to nation scale. The reason an individual wouldn’t tell everyone your limit at an auction is the same reason a government wouldn’t publish its trade deals; to do so would prejudice their ability to buy or sell.

If you or a government are out to buy something whether it’s a car or a fleet of cars you would be foolish to say “I can pay up to X amount” because the seller can then inflate their price to suit what you can pay and not what the product is worth. Remember that you can only control how honest/transparent you are but not how honest and transparent other people are. That is the dilemma that faces governments and us as the electorate.


what some one is willing to pay is privet,the info about the item being bought/sold , should be out in the open .do you not agree?


That depends what it is, defence and security equipment certainly couldn’t be public knowledge as that could again cost lives down the line.


Sensitive issues ,Really get a friggin grip ,grow a friggin pair, talk like adults ,agree to disagree,no ones opinion is better then anyone else. If you have a problem with some one and cant work it out move to the next guy and try to work it out with them,if ect,rinse and repeat.Or simply dont hang around them /deal with them. No one should be forced to be friends , but should respect each others lives should they not?


I think we’ve crossed wires a bit here.

Going back a few posts I gave the example of a number of politicians and government advisors in the UK who said things about the recent recession in private that were then leaked; these opinions were not evil or necessarily factually wrong but they were offensive to a large portion of the electorate. The result of this information becoming public was that these politicians had to retract their opinions, in one case resign and the issues they wished to bring up were not addressed.

Putting yourself in the position of a policy maker who needs to A) keep his job and B) get re-elected would you be willing to discuss an issue in public that you knew would probably cost you your job or would you shy away from discussing it?


What some one thinks is completely worthless, it dose nothing, only their actions do .If country A says we really dont like country B dose it really friggin matter as long as country A dosnt attack country B


But nations are lead by people who are just as subject to human psychology as everyone else and opinions do herald actions. If country A says they really don’t like country B wouldn’t it be sensible for country B to increase its defences and take a belligerent attitude towards country A?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join